Linguistic Evidence in Dating Text: The Case of the Hebrew Bible

1
Linguistic Evidence in Dating TextThe Case of
the Hebrew Bible

• Shelly Harrison
• Linguistics
• University of Western Australia

Australian Linguistic Society Annual
Meeting Monash University Thursday 29 September,
2005
2
Outline

• Variation in Text as Apparent Time
• Standard Literary Languages
• Pre-modern Hebrew Literary Standards
• Literary Complexity of the Hebrew Bible
• Synchronic and Diachronic Models
• Defining Late Biblical Hebrew
• The Hurvitz Argument Form
• Remarks on Method

3
Apparent Time in Sociolinguistics and in Text

• Some General Considerations

4
Apparent Time
"Apparent time is the distribution of
linguistic forms across age groups in the speech
community." (Labov 199428)
5
Variation and Change
"Not all variability and heterogeneity in
language structure involves change, but all
change involves variability and heterogeneity."
(Weinreich et al. 1968188)
6
Variation in Sociolinguistic Space

• Temporally-stable (Inherent) Variation
• occasional (contextual) choice
• position by chance in socio-geographic space
• Age-correlated residue is due to change

7
Variation Across Texts

• Age of the texts
• The author in socio-geographic space
• gender and class
• geographical dialect
• Style
• Genre
• Residual Variation as Change

8
Comparing the Problems
9
Summary 1 Text Dating

• relative text dating and Labovian
  change-in-progress are different problems
• more difficult to rule out independent variables
  other than change
• literary languages are resistant to change
• difficult to date by linguistic means

10
Literary Standards

• Archaising, Diglossia, and Pre-modern Hebrew
  Literary Standards

11
Standard Literary Languages

• Artificiality of literary standard
• Literary language must be learned
• up to diglossia
• Some writers are better than others!
• Change in literary standard
• Literary standard tends to persist through time
• How do literary standards change?
• Different conditions? Different rate?

12
Hebrew Literary Standards

• Standard Biblical Hebrew
• target lect throughout biblical period, say many
• narrative and legal prose
• liturgical and prophetic poetry
• also attested in Iron Age inscriptions?
• Mishnaic Hebrew
• new standard after c. 200 CE
• grounded in (late 2nd Temple) vernacular?

13
Some Long Iron Age Inscriptions

• Mesha Stele (9th C, 300 words)
• Siloam Tunnel Inscription (7th C, 55 words)
• Lachish Letter (c. 600 BCE, 100 words)
• Yavneh Yam Ostracon (c. 630 BCE)

14
Other Literary Lects

• Archaic Biblical Hebrew
• epic/historical poetry
• Late Biblical Hebrew
• 2nd Temple period (c. 530 BCE - c. 100 CE)
• SBH with increasing Aramaisms and other slips

15
Literary Complexity of the Hebrew Bible

• Synchronic and Diachronic Analyses

16
Synchronic Analysis of Text

• Simple
• strictly hierarchical structure
• XML markup compatible
• Complex
• overlapping or intersecting structures
• requires SGML markup

17
Diachronic Analysis of Text

• Simple
• linear composition
• limiting case beginning to end in one sitting by
  a single author
• Complex
• more than one author
• not linear
• over extended time period

18
Diachronic Models for the Pentateuch

• Fragment (Block) Model
• Supplement Model
• Document Model

19
Fragment (Block) Model

• In Pentateuch, blocks of
• Genealogy
• Law
• Narrative
• perhaps earlier transmitted orally
• redactor combines blocks into a text

20
Supplement Model

• A core/foundation document
• to which bits were then added,
• but perhaps not in sequence.

21
Document Model

• different texts, perhaps from different times
• cut-and-pasted by one or more redactors

22
Newer Documentary Hypothesisfor the Pentateuch

• Wellhausen (1878)
• Jahwist
• Elohist
• Priestly Document
• Deuteronomy
• J gt E gt D gt P

23
Hebrew Bible

• Non-linguistic Data for Dating

24
Summary 11 The Hebrew Bible

• a historically complex document
• some approximate dating of texts by
  non-linguistic evidence
• texts without dating evidence
• Maximalists assume they are early
• Minimalists assume they are late

25
ante quem and post quem

• all texts before 100 CE
• some texts after c. 530 BCE
• some texts after 586 BCE

26
TaNaKh The Hebrew Bible
Verse counts (Hebrew/Aramaic)
27
Non-linguistic Evidence

• Qumran materials (200 BCE - 100 CE)
• at least fragments of all books but Esther
• references to events or individuals
• if historicity supported by non-biblical
  evidence
• Aramaic sections and Persian loans
• literary dependencies or allusions

28
Persian-Hellenistic Texts

• Daniel
• Chronicles
• Ezra-Nehemiah
• Job
• Esther
• Song of Songs

• Joel
• Haggai
• Zachariah
• Malachi

29
Texts with Exilic Setting/Theme

• Deutero- and Trito-Isaiah
• Ezekiel
• Lamentations

30
Texts with Pre-exilic Settings Maximalist
Interpretations

• historicity of narrative episodes by default
• composition close to occurrence
• Iron Age II (pre-exilic) dating for most of
  Pentateuch and Deuteronomistic history
• dating the Priestly Source
• Pre-exilic foundation source, vs.
• Persian period cultic document

31
Texts with Pre-exilic Settings Minimalist
Interpretations

• Minimalists deny historicity without
  extra-biblical evidence
• textual or archaeological
• little prior to c. 600 BCE
• Hebrew Bible as ideological document of
  Persian/Hellenistic periods

32
Linguistic Evidence

• Defining and Exploiting
• Late Biblical Hebrew

33
Summary 111 Late Biblical Hebrew

• Assuming a single standard, only late features
  are recognisable
• Evidence for lateness is not compelling
• empirical and statistical considerations
• non-chronological accounts

34
Heterogeneity and Homogeneity of Biblical Hebrew

• "In the memoirs of Ezra and Nehemiaha more
  marked change is beginning to show itself in
  both vocabulary and syntaxsuch as is continued
  in use afterward in the 'New Hebrew' of the
  Mishnah (Driver 1892473)
• "Yet, as a rule, the differences between these
  layers of Biblical Hebrew--SPH are unexpectedly
  slight and Biblical language, though stemming
  from all parts of Erets Israel over a very long
  period, is surprisingly uniform." (Blau 19782)
• "Although our biblical texts span a good many
  centuries, the language in which they are written
  presents an astonishing degree of uniformity."
  (Joüon and Muraoka 19939)

35
Arguments from LBH

• Presuming that
• LBH is well-defined
• then
• the extent to which a text exhibits LBH
  features is the extent to which a text is late.

36
Categorical and Variable Features

• The greater number of categorical LBH features,
  the later the text.
• The closer the proportion of a variable feature
  to the LBH proportion, the later the text.

37
Instances of the LBH Argument Form

• Polzin (1976)
• P is intermediate between SBH and LBH
• Hurvitz (1974, 1982)
• P is closer to SBH than to LBH
• Ezekiel is intermediate between P and LBH
• Rooker (1990)
• Ezekiel is intermediate between SBH and LBH

38
Samuel-Kings and Chronicles

• Chronicles dependent on Samuel-Kings
• synoptic and non-synoptic portions
• Chronicles linked to Ezra-Nehemiah
• identity of respective conclusion/introduction
• Chronicles presumed to reflect 2nd Temple
  ideology
• sanitised view of Judean monarchy
• interest in Temple cult

39
Kropat and Polzin

• Arno Kropat (1909) Die Syntax des Autors der
  Chronik verglichen mit der seiner Quellen.
• used synoptic sections
• Robert Polzin (1976) Late Biblical Hebrew
  towards an historical typology of Biblical Hebrew
  prose.
• used non-synoptic sections

40
Characteristics of Late Biblical Hebrew

• 146 proposed differences in literature
• 1 orthographic
• different only in unvocalised manuscripts
• 35 grammatical
• 16 involve grammatical properties (e.g. binyan)
  of individual lexical items
• 110 lexical
• dimorphisms in contentive items
• forms occurring only in late texts

41
Orthographic Alternations Defectiva/Plene

• SBH
• DaWiD ???
• Samuel-Kings 669
• Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles 1

• LBH
• DaWiYD ????
• Samuel-Kings 3
• Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles 271

42
etSuffix Object Suffix
w?lo? n?tanam b?yad j?howua? and-not
give-3sm-perf-3pm in-hand J 'and not give them
into the hand of Joshua' Ju. 223 w?natan
?otam ?al ro? hassa?ir and-give-3sm-perf na-3pm
on head def-goat 'and put them on the head of
the goat' Lev. 1621

• etSuffix
• Court History 25
• Chronicles 14

• Object Suffix
• Court History 50
• Chronicles 141

43
Lexico-Grammatical Alternations
SBH ?anokiy LBH ?aniy '1s pronoun'

• ?anokiy
• Samuel-Kings 59
• Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles 2
• Job 14
• Genesis (P) 1
• Genesis (JE) 56

• ?aniy
• Samuel-Kings 96
• Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles 47
• Job 29
• Genesis (P) 6
• Genesis (JE) 35

44
Lexico-Grammatical Alternations

• heqiym 149 tokens
• Tetrateuch 28
• Deuteronomist 58
• Isaiah 6
• Jeremiah 19
• Ezekiel 5
• Twelve 9
• Psalms/Proverbs 8
• Dan/Job/Qoh/Ru 7
• Neh/Chronicles 9

• qiyam 11 tokens
• Ezekiel 1
• Psalms 2
• Ruth 1
• Esther 7

SBH hifil LBH piel qwm stand, set up
45
Lexico-Grammatical Alternations

• ?eyk 61 tokens
• Pentateuch 6
• Deuteronomist 15
• Isaiah 6
• Jeremiah 17
• Ezekiel 2
• Chronicles 1
• Qohelet 2
• Job 1

• heyk 2 tokens
• Chronicles 1
• Daniel 1

SBH ?eyk LBH heyk how?'
46
Lexical Alternations
? SBH has?er LBH ?azarah 'forecourt'

• ?azarah 9 tokens
• Ezekiel 6
• Chronicles 3
• qahal 123 tokens
• Pentateuch 34
• Chronicles 33

• has?er 191 tokens
• Ezekiel 48
• Chronicles 16
• ?edah 171 tokens
• Pentateuch 113
• Chronicles 1

SBH ?edah LBH qahal 'congregation'
47
Lexical Alternations

• mahtah 22 tokens
• JE 10
• P 8
• Kings 2
• Jeremiah 1
• Chronicles 1

• miqt?eret 2 tokens
• Ezekiel 1
• Chronicles 1

SBH mahtah LBH miqt?eret 'fire pan'
48
Lexical Alternations

• SBH
• e 39 tokens
• Genesis 1
• Exodus 33
• Ezekiel 4
• Proverbs 1

• LBH
• buws? 8 tokens
• Ezekiel 1
• Esther 2
• Chronicles 5

SBH e LBH buws? 'fine linen'
49
Assessing LBH Evidence

• Grammatical evidence (general)
• 6 of 19 not queried by 2 scholars on empirical
  or statistical grounds
• Lexical evidence
• c. 20 of 110 cases are replacements
• most variable
• no validity testing done

50
Hurvitz Argument for LBH

• in papers 1965-present

51
Hurvitz Argument Form

• SBH properties can appear in any text.
• No exclusively SBH properties!
• A late property must satisfy three criteria
• Biblical distribution
• Extra-biblical attestation
• Linguistic contrast
• A late text must satisfy
• Accumulation

52
Late Linguistic Properties

• Biblical distribution
• predominantly in acknowledged late texts
• Extra-biblical attestation
• in late texts outside the biblical corpus
• Linguistic contrast
• with some alternative "commonly attested in the
  classical tradition of the language
• (Hurvitz 2000148)
• And late authors can never archaise perfectly.
  They will always slip up! (ibid.154)

53
Hurvitz Critiquing Hurvitz

• Distribution
• corpus size not large
• some 'early' attestations of 'late' features
• Attestation
• authors stylistic idiosyncrasies
• Contrast
• non-chronological accounts are possible
• Hurvitz believes all three properties together
  argue for chronological account.

54
Hurvitz Argument Premises

• Some properties can occur in any text.
• Some properties do occur in acknowledged late
  texts.
• Imperfect archaising all late texts will have
  some late property.

55
The Problem à la Hurvitz

• Since are no early properties
• An early text has no late properties.
• A late text has late properties.
• what must be proved is lateness
• of properties
• of texts
• Burden of proof on late daters!

56
LBH Properties

• filter out properties that might have
  non-chronological accounts
• attestation and idiosyncrasy
• contrast and topic
• probably not much data left!
• property more likely late if in a text known to
  be late
• fallacy of begging the question

57
LBH Texts

• A late text has an accumulation of late
  properties
• even early texts can have Aramaisms
• LBH properties from acknowledged late texts
• No known text of unacknowledged date could have
  such properties!

58
Beyond Hurvitz

• Hurvitz doesnt use linguistic evidence to prove
  lateness
• uses occurrence in late texts
• Could early properties/texts be late?
• unless known from (archaeologically) acknowledged
  early texts
• Iron Age data is scant, and doesnt contain
  lexical data on which Hurvitz relies.

59
In Defense of Method

• " 'Methods' wrote Åke Hultkrantz some years ago,
  'are the crutches of science'. The healthy have
  no need of them the busy have little time for
  them. There is a danger that the 'second order'
  student may spend so much time studying other
  people's methods (and quoting them at length,
  after the manner of social scientists) that there
  is little time left for the actual study of
  religion, let alone its practice." (Sharpe
  200541)

60
Data, Reason, and Method

• Arguments can be rejected
• if not logically sound
• if not be falsifiable by data
• if available data is limited
• Data limitations
• use what you have and hang the statistics
• weigh your data in a balance